A brief history of Buddhist internet forums

[Radix]

Base, since it's that a Buddhist at least is thought to having gone for refuge, while seemingly not, good householder, when feeding on a heritage.

Thought to be useful, they are all just destructive and dividing, proper to avoid, as Brahmans do not take a lower seat and not given, monks are just hoped to get around for feeds. It's just approaching corrupted families, burdensome and of less benefit upwardly for all.

You still didn't say what the basis for your expectation is.

People should behave the way you think they should behave because ...?

[BrokenBones]

I reported your post because I didn’t agree with it and it made me really mad and sad.

It's nice to be noticed ... I think the police are knocking at my door to arrest me under the 'Feelings Act'.

[DNS]

Base, since it's that a Buddhist at least is thought to having gone for refuge, while seemingly not, good householder, when feeding on a heritage.

Thought to be useful, they are all just destructive and dividing, proper to avoid, as Brahmans do not take a lower seat and not given, monks are just hoped to get around for feeds. It's just approaching corrupted families, burdensome and of less benefit upwardly for all.

You still didn't say what the basis for your expectation is.

People should behave the way you think they should behave because ...?

Good luck getting a straight answer from Johann. I'm still not sure what point he is trying to make.

The Dhamma is not to be made into an occupation?
The Dhamma is not to be made available to lay people, even for free?
Lay people are supposed to take their place, always much lower than monks and novices?
He has it right, everyone else is wrong?

Not sure, which one of the above is his point or if it's all of the above?

[Johann]

Base, since it's that a Buddhist at least is thought to having gone for refuge, while seemingly not, good householder, when feeding on a heritage.

Thought to be useful, they are all just destructive and dividing, proper to avoid, as Brahmans do not take a lower seat and not given, monks are just hoped to get around for feeds. It's just approaching corrupted families, burdensome and of less benefit upwardly for all.

You still didn't say what the basis for your expectation is.

People should behave the way you think they should behave because ...?

It should, for one clear to talk within certain frame (here on board thought being the Gems, liberation, upwardly, be clear, that "shoulds" and advices are always done in regard of "to lead to long term happiness", "to lead beyond" as well as disencouragements, dispraise, blames, are also always related to "if ot wishing to tend downwardly. If => then. And of course it's what the wise not only think, but know by themselves, clear seen, headed by the Sublime Buddha, good householder.

There is all liberality and freedom, for those not already bond toward higher and beyond, to either take on it or ignore it. Nobody else then one self in charge of ones deeds and attainments. Giving by The Bhagavato, the liberal, end right there.

[Radix]

Good luck getting a straight answer from Johann. I'm still not sure what point he is trying to make.

The Dhamma is not to be made into an occupation?
The Dhamma is not to be made available to lay people, even for free?
Lay people are supposed to take their place, always much lower than monks and novices?
He has it right, everyone else is wrong?

Not sure, which one of the above is his point or if it's all of the above?

Being straightforward can be very demeaning. For some people, it is beneath their dignity to speak bluntly about some things. Case in point: religious or spiritual classism.

Even the most liberal people believe there are different classes of people as far as religion and spirituality are concerned, and that classes should not attempt to mix and that the system of classes must remain. Not just the formal classes (monastic vs. lay), but also in terms of a person's potential for attainment (having such potential vs. being a lowly person).
Even very liberal people express such beliefs, even if they do so rarely or only implicitly.

The internet and social media are creating an illusion of "contact with the Dhamma". While through the internet, many people can indeed be reached, the quality of such contact is extremely low, and misleading.

[cappuccino]

you don’t need a living teacher


Buddha is the teacher

[Radix]

you don’t need a living teacher

If you have a teacher, and he dies, and you can't find another suitable one, that's one thing.

It's another thing to invent excuses for why your very living teacher doesn't have to have any time for you. It's a trend among Buddhists to have a living teacher but to have the kind of relationship with him as if he were already dead. This can be cultish sheepishness. It can also be a way to never get serious about the Dhamma while constantly being in some kind of proximity to it.

One cannot rightfully unilaterally declare oneself someone's student.

[cappuccino]

If you have a teacher, and he dies, and you can't find another suitable one, that's one thing.

Buddha = Teacher

[Radix]

Buddha = Teacher

Does he consider you his student?

Would he consider you his student?

[cappuccino]

Buddha = Teacher

Does he consider you his student?

Would he consider you his student?

[Radix]

That's right: you don't know.
It's not possible to build a life on Buddhism while there is uncertainty about such a central thing as whether you'd be accepted as a student or not.

[cappuccino]

That's right: you don't know.
It's not possible to build a life on Buddhism while there is uncertainty about such a central thing as whether you'd be accepted as a student or not.

Speak for yourself

[Radix]

Speak for yourself

Then why your earlier?

[SarathW]

Base, since it's that a Buddhist at least is thought to having gone for refuge, while seemingly not, good householder, when feeding on a heritage.

Thought to be useful, they are all just destructive and dividing, proper to avoid, as Brahmans do not take a lower seat and not given, monks are just hoped to get around for feeds. It's just approaching corrupted families, burdensome and of less benefit upwardly for all.

You still didn't say what the basis for your expectation is.

People should behave the way you think they should behave because ...?

Good luck getting a straight answer from Johann. I'm still not sure what point he is trying to make.

The Dhamma is not to be made into an occupation?
The Dhamma is not to be made available to lay people, even for free?
Lay people are supposed to take their place, always much lower than monks and novices?
He has it right, everyone else is wrong?

Not sure, which one of the above is his point or if it's all of the above?

I hope he knows.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Speak for yourself

Then why your earlier?

I suspect the "speak for yourself" had more to do with your comment "It's not possible to build a life on Buddhism while there is uncertainty about such a central thing as whether you'd be accepted as a student or not."

I don't recall ever seeing such a criteria specified in the Suttas, which casts questions upon its "centrality". Maybe it is "central" only for you personally?



Metta,
Paul.